Ep. 1034 - Medical Organizations Want Us Arrested For Criticizing Them
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, major medical organizations call on the DOJ to arrest and imprison those of us who criticize their medical practices. Also, female athletes at a school in Vermont are banned from the locker room because they don’t want to get naked in front of a boy. Candace Owens and Kanye West stir up trouble by wearing shirts with a very controversial message: white lives matter. Leftist activists make their counter insurgency battle plans for my What Is A Woman screening tour. And in our Daily Cancellation, two gay men say they have a right to be biological parents.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join the Jeremy’s Razors Contest For The Car at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/play. See terms and conditions for complete details at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/referralterms
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch movies, shows, documentaries and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Protect your online privacy with ExpressVPN. Get 3 Months FREE! https://www.ExpressVPN.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Walsh show, major medical organizations call on the DOJ to arrest and imprison those of us who criticize their medical practices.
Also, female athletes at a school in Vermont are banned from the locker room because they don't want to get naked in front of a boy.
Candace Owens and Kanye West throw up trouble by wearing shirts with a very controversial Message white lives matter.
You can't say that leftist activists make their counterinsurgency battle plans for my what is a woman screening tour and in our daily cancellation to gay men say they have a right to be Biological parents, how does that work?
Exactly?
We'll find out today that and much more on The Matt Walsh Show.
So you know Biden's infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year?
Well, here's something that I bet you didn't know about it.
In a few years, every car might be required to come with a safety device that passively monitors you for impaired driving.
Big government wants to control every part of your life and clamp down on your digital freedom.
That's why I use ExpressVPN to protect my network from being monitored.
Your internet provider can keep logs of your internet activity, which includes things like
the sites you visited and how much time you spent on them.
But when you use ExpressVPN, your internet activity is shielded.
Their app works by rerouting 100% of your network data through their secure encrypted
servers to keep your activity private.
Unlike the kill switch the government wants to put in all of our cars, ExpressVPN's kill
switch actually protects you.
If your VPN connection ever drops, network data is immediately stopped from entering
or leaving your device to keep your privacy from being compromised.
It's a kill switch that you control.
So stop letting the government spy on you.
Take back your privacy and your freedom at ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh and get three months for free.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S VPN.com slash Walsh to get this special offer for my listeners.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
Yesterday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with the American Medical Association and the Children's Hospital Association, collectively published a letter, which was addressed to the Department of Justice, and which calls for me to be prosecuted and thrown in federal prison.
So just another day at the office, I suppose.
But it's not just me being targeted.
Of course, Libs of TikTok, Chris Ruffo, and others all are on the hit list.
And the letter doesn't mention us by name, but it doesn't have to.
Besides, there's always the media, which is here to sort of fill in the blanks for them, which they rely on.
So as The Hill reports, quote, leading health care organizations sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland and called on the Department of Justice to investigate recent threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families that provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth.
The organizations collectively represent more than 270,000 physicians and more than 220 children's hospitals nationwide.
Medical facilities that provide gender-affirming health care to transgender minors have recently been the targets of online attacks.
And the letter says, a few high-profile users are intentionally spreading false and misleading information.
Conservative commentators, including Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh, as well as right-wing social media accounts with large followings like Libs of TikTok, have alleged that doctors are abusing children by prescribing puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones.
Now, notice the verbiage there, first of all.
We're told that we've alleged That doctors are abusing children by prescribing puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones.
So, which part is alleged?
That doctors are prescribing these drugs, or that they're abusing children by prescribing the drugs?
As always, the phrasing is intentionally vague and misleading, and also false, we should note.
We are not alleging that doctors are giving sterilization and castration drugs to kids.
They're doing more than that, too.
They're mutilating kids physically through surgery.
We're not alleging that.
We're reporting it.
We're observing it.
We're pointing it out.
It is a fact that this is happening, and we are calling attention to the fact.
We're also not alleging that these drugs constitute abuse.
Again, this is a fact according to any coherent definition of the word abuse.
We are arguing that this practice is abusive, and we are presenting evidence and information to support that claim.
But we know, of course, that the other side will not honestly engage with us, because they cannot.
They can only lie and mislead, and if that fails, they can call upon their powerful friends to have us silence.
Which brings us to the actual letter, which begins, quote, Dear Attorney General Garland, On behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Children's Hospital Association, collectively representing more than 270,000 physicians and more than 220 children's hospitals, we write to urge you to investigate the organizations, individuals, and entities coordinating, provoking, and carrying out bomb threats and threats of personal violence against children's hospitals and physicians across the U.S.
So take special note of the words individuals and provoking.
Now if they had simply called upon the DOJ to investigate the people carrying out the alleged bomb threats, I'd have no complaint about that.
Yes, if there's a bomb threat, investigate it.
But they also want the federal government to bring the hammer down on the individuals who they claim are provoking these alleged threats.
And it's already been made very clear that anyone who reports on what these hospitals are doing, or criticizes them for it, or says that they should not be doing what they're doing, is inciting violence.
Even if they never call for violence or say anything that could be remotely construed as an encouragement for violence, just by talking about it, they are inciting violence.
So it's clear who's being referred to here.
Now continuing, from Boston to Akron to Nashville to Seattle, children's hospitals, academic health systems, and physicians are being targeted and threatened for providing evidence-based health care.
These attacks have not only made it difficult and dangerous for institutions and practices to provide this care, they've also disrupted many other services to families seeking care.
These coordinated attacks threaten federally protected rights to health care for patients and their families.
The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation, where a few high-profile users on social media share false and misleading information targeting individual physicians and hospitals, resulting in a rapid escalation of threats, harassment, and disruption of care across multiple jurisdictions.
Organizations have called on technology companies to do more to prevent this practice on digital platforms, and we now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible.
Well, there it is.
High-profile users on social media are targeting hospitals, which results in threats.
And this is happening in places like Boston, and they mentioned Nashville.
They say these individuals should be investigated and prosecuted.
And this is all according to three of the largest and wealthiest medical organizations in the entire world.
So make no mistake here.
They are explicitly stating that high-profile people, quote-unquote, who criticize their practices should go to federal prison.
That's what you're asking for when you're asking for the federal government to arrest somebody.
They're not just saying that it should happen, they're actively calling on the Attorney General to make it happen.
They intend to use the force of the federal government to silence us, permanently, if they can.
So let me make a few points here.
First of all, we are once again accused of sharing false and misleading information, to use their phrasing.
And yet, once again, they fail to provide any specific example of this supposed misinformation.
So I've been told a million times that what I'm saying is misinformation, what Libs with TikTok is saying is misinformation, Chris Ruffo, everybody, what we're all saying is misinformation.
No one's ever specified what exact part is misinformation.
They don't do that because they know full well that everything we've reported about these hospitals is factual and supported by extensive documentation and evidence.
We lay it all out.
They also know full well that we're not saying anything that these medical establishments have not already said themselves.
So the hospitals say, we provide these services.
And then we say, look, these hospitals just said they provide these services.
And then we get accused of misinformation.
The real misinformation here is the claim that we are spreading misinformation.
That itself is misinformation.
It's also defamatory.
Okay, the AAP and the AMA, they are lying about us with the direct and explicit intent of causing us harm.
That's defamation.
Second, I'm obviously well aware that the people who go around all day crying about fascism and tyranny really have no idea what these terms mean, nor do they care, but if we were living in some alternate reality where such people had integrity, then maybe they'd be concerned about this actual real-life example of authoritarian tyranny happening in their midst.
Because to state again, these extraordinarily well-funded and powerful medical organizations are attempting to use the arm of the state to suppress, intimidate, and punish their critics.
And not just the state.
See, we see here the whole multi-headed Hydra monstrosity come into view.
This is the medical establishment summoning the federal government and also the big tech monopoly to crush anyone who opposes it.
And in this effort, they also get a big assist from the corporate media.
So this is the system.
The corporate media, the government, medical establishment, big tech.
This is the system.
It's the thing the left used to pretend to rage against.
Yesterday, there was a woman named Brooke Binkowski, who's the managing editor of a sham fact-checking outfit, and she tweeted at me in support of the AAP's speech suppression tactic.
she said, "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences for that speech.
That's the part you bootlickers always forget until it's too late.
Cry more."
Yet, of course, the medical establishment is trying to get the state involved.
And free speech does most certainly mean that your speech should be free from government reprisal.
If that's not what free speech means, then I don't know what free speech means.
Which is what people like, you know, that's what people like Brooke really mean, by the way.
They don't think that free speech means anything.
They don't care about it.
They're too cowardly to say it.
But it's her usage of the term bootlicker that really interests me, because she is here coming to the defense of the federal government, the medical establishment, big tech, and the corporate media.
She is defending all of the most powerful institutions in our society, and while doing so, accusing me of being a bootlicker.
No, I'm the one that they are trying to stomp under their boot heel.
Okay, me and anyone else that opposes what the medical establishment is doing to kids, we're the ones being stomped, or that they're attempting to stomp.
She's the one kneeling and kissing their feet.
She and everybody else on the left.
They rage against the machine these days by bowing before it.
But will they be successful?
The AAP wants Garland's goons to break down our doors and cart us away in the middle of the night at gunpoint.
And is that actually going to happen?
Maybe.
I mean, you can't rule it out.
It's exactly what they just did to that pro-life activist up in Pennsylvania.
And if they'll do it on that issue to a guy like that, then they'll do it here.
So, you know, it is possible.
I will say that.
It's certainly a possibility.
I can't control that or predict it.
But what I can say is this, what I've been saying all along, which is that I truly believe that gender ideology is one of the greatest evils in human history.
I don't say that lightly.
That's what I believe.
And I believe that those of us who are in this fight are called to be here.
This is our vocation.
This is our mission.
There's nothing they could threaten.
that would make me back down from this fight.
You're gonna have to throw me in prison or kill me because that's the only way you'll shut me up.
I would actually rather be dead than surrender to this madness.
For me, it's as simple as that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
This is from fox17.
It says, A girls high school volleyball team has reportedly been banned from its own locker room after some players objected to allowing a transgender player to be present while the team was changing clothes.
In Vermont, the home of Randolph High School, state policy dictates that transgender students can play sports and use facilities that correspond to their desired gender.
The state law allows for trans students to play on Randolph High's girls' volleyball team and apparently use the team's locker rooms at the same time as everybody else.
Adding to this, the trans athlete allegedly made an inappropriate remark to other players on the team while they were all changing, which made some uncomfortable.
One student who spoke with a news outlet claimed that the issue had become a school-wide controversy.
Quote, It's a huge thing.
Everyone's asking, so why aren't you allowed in the locker room?
This is according to Blake Allen, one of the affected volleyball players.
My mom wants me to do this interview to try to make a change.
I feel like for stating my opinion that I don't want a biological man changing with me, that I should not have harassment charges or bullying charges.
They should all be dropped.
Allen claims that several other students and some parents have raised complaints about allowing the transgender athlete inside the girl's locker room.
Those concerns were all reportedly shot down by the school officials, who pointed to state law which says transgender athletes are allowed to use whichever locker room they wish.
One parent who spoke with the Daily Signal was reportedly bewildered that the school would prioritize the transgender student's needs over their daughter's.
Quote, we allowed a child who's biologically the opposite sex male to go in a locker room where biologically girls were getting fully changed.
The biological child was not changing and sat in the back and watched girls getting changed.
That made girls feel uncomfortable, made girls feel violated and not protected.
Yeah, I should think so.
In response to the complaints, Randolph High said in a letter to parents that it has plenty of space where students who feel uncomfortable with the laws may change in privacy.
So that's what we're saying to the girls, not to the boy who's claiming that his gender identity needs require him to change in a locker room with girls.
Not even change, reportedly.
Just sit there and watch them get changed.
So we can't say to him, you know, there's plenty of other facilities.
If you want to, you know, you could change somewhere else.
You don't need to change.
We're not going to say it to him.
We'll say that to all the girls who feel uncomfortable.
Say to the girls, oh, if you don't want to get naked in front of this guy, that's your problem.
You're the one with an issue.
You can go somewhere else.
In response to the complaints, Randolph High sent a letter to parents, and it said that it has plenty of space because we already read that.
Allen contests that the school's statement and its apparent solution of using more private areas, such as bathroom stalls, to change simply aren't feasible.
Allen said they want all the girls who feel uncomfortable, so pretty much 10 girls, to get changed in a single-stall bathroom, which would take over 30 minutes, where if one person got changed separately, it would take a minute.
No extra time.
So you could have 10 girls take turns with one stall in a bathroom getting changed.
And that is the solution they came up with, rather than saying to the one guy, you get changed in the stall.
The girls have said they don't have any issue with the trans athlete playing on their team, but they don't want the transgender person in the locker room where they're changing, especially given the inappropriate remark that the person allegedly made.
And then it continues, the volleyball team has been banned from the locker room by the school, with officials saying in an email announcement that they do not make this decision lightly, but we believe it's the right decision at this time.
The Vermont Agency of Education Policy says, the use of restrooms and locker rooms by transgender students requires schools to consider numerous factors.
A transgender student should not be required to use a locker room or restroom that conflicts with the student's gender identity.
You know, I'm sometimes tempted to draw historical analogies and to compare all of this to other previous examples of, you know, mass hysteria, mass insanity that you see throughout history.
But this is really on a different level and it defies comparison in so many ways.
Other incidents of mass hysteria, for one thing, are much more contained.
They're more localized, the Salem Witch Trials.
For example, and oftentimes they're much shorter in duration.
Sort of these weird blips on the historical radar.
So there was something called the Dancing Plague of 1518.
And I don't know a whole lot about it, but I don't think anyone really does.
What I do know is that in 1518, in some village in the Roman Empire, I think in modern-day France, dozens of people, just townspeople, started dancing.
And they danced for weeks, and nobody knew why they were dancing.
And some of them, like, danced themselves to death.
And it was thought at the time that they were demonically possessed.
Now it's theorized that they were sick.
I think one theory is that they had food poisoning, which makes you dance.
I've had food poisoning before.
I've been a Burger King like so many other people.
It's never caused me to dance.
In fact, I would rather get food poisoning that makes me vomit my guts out for two days than have food poisoning that makes me dance.
Anyway, that's one theory.
Another theory is that it was some sort of psychotic episode that they all were having at the same time.
Personally, I prefer the contemporaneous explanation of demonic possession.
It makes more sense to me.
But either way, these things are similar to the transgender craze that is inflicting on our society right now in that they are bizarre, irrational, They cause people to completely lose their grip on reality.
And also the transgender craze, like the dancing epidemic or the Salem witch trials, will be looked back on by history as a mystery, a period of time that requires explanation, but can never really be explained.
That's what you have to realize about what we're living through right now.
That we are living in a chapter of the history books.
One of those chapters where people are going to be trying to explain it.
Like that's going to be the main topic of conversation for historians of the future.
How did that happen exactly?
And yet this is different.
It's far worse because it's much wider spread.
It encompasses all of Western civilization.
It's been going on for years.
And the consequences are far more dire.
Far more dire.
But it's still mass hysteria.
Intentionally orchestrated.
But mass hysteria.
And now we have girls getting kicked out of their locker rooms for not wanting to be naked around a boy who is also sexually harassing them, allegedly.
And even if he wasn't saying anything, just his very presence is sexual harassment.
I mean, that's what we used to all agree, I thought.
That if you are interjecting yourself We used to all agree.
And the sane and rational among us still agree.
It's just that we're a dwindling minority, unfortunately.
in her private space where she is vulnerable and taking her clothes off,
and you show up and she doesn't want you there, your very presence is harassment.
We used to all agree, and the sane and rational among us still agree.
It's just that we're a dwindling minority, unfortunately.
Being sane and rational, I mean.
By the way, Caitlyn Jenner was on Fox to talk about this, and I saw this because it was trending on social media this
morning.
Caitlyn Jenner was trending for this.
Let's check that out.
Here it is.
The left is hijacked and politicized.
Yet another minority group in our wonderful country that could hold US of A. And this time again, it's trans people.
As a result of their radical left and their use of identity politics agenda, they're really driving this country apart.
I thought Joe Biden was supposed to be the great unifier, and all they're doing is driving this apart.
Now, does this trans girl have the right under Vermont law to be on the team and to use the locker room?
Yes, she does.
Do these girls have the right to comment And tell the school board how uncomfortable they are being in a locker room with basically a biological boy with a penis.
Absolutely they do.
What is the school's solution to this?
Well, let's ban the 10 girls who complain.
The complainers.
Put them off in the corner in their own little part of the locker room and don't do anything when it comes to this trans person.
So, honestly, everything is out of whack right now.
And these things have to stop.
Everything's out of whack, I agree.
It's so out of whack that this male who identifies as a woman is being trotted out onto TV To be the voice of reason, and it's celebrated by many on the right in that role, but Jenner is not suited for the position of the voice of reason.
This is, like, the worst possible person, actually, that you could bring in to talk about this would be Caitlyn Jenner.
But of course, what they think is, well, this is a trans person, this is perfect, see, we get credit from the left because it's a trans person saying all this.
Jenner is part of the problem, okay?
It was Jenner winning Woman of the Year in 2015, or whenever that was, who did perhaps more than anyone else currently alive on the planet to bring transgenderism into the mainstream.
At least the final move into the mainstream was brought about largely by Caitlyn Jenner.
It used to be Bruce Jenner.
That was a pivotal moment in history.
And again, historians looking back on that, they're going to point to that moment.
Not the beginning of the transgender craze, but even so, a pivotal moment of bringing it into the mainstream.
And it's not like Jenner has repented of that or said, you know what?
I was wrong about all that.
I wish I wasn't a part of that.
No, not at all.
And now we get these Fox segments.
But Jenner's position makes no sense, okay?
Is the biological, and of course they don't ask this, but is the biological male a girl or not?
Jenner says, this person who's basically a biological male.
No, not basically a biological male, it's a biological male.
So, is the biological male a girl or not?
If he's a girl, as Jenner says, then yes, he would have the right to use the girl's locker room.
In fact, if he was a girl and hadn't done anything else.
So let's say that the sexual harassment, the inappropriate remarks that are alleged didn't actually happen.
So it's just a girl using the locker room, not doing anything wrong.
And those other girls decided to be mean and demand that he be kicked out because he's not cool or something.
Then it would be the right decision.
To tell the other girls that they should leave instead of him.
If he was actually a girl.
But he's not.
See, the one single, the only argument against, quote, trans girls in the girls' locker room is that they are not girls.
That is the only argument.
It's the only one.
It's a good argument.
It's the only argument you need.
But it's also the only argument.
If we're not right about that, if we are not correct that trans girls are not in fact girls, then we're wrong about the whole thing.
But we are correct, obviously.
There is no other argument.
So, Jenner wants to affirm the girlness of this boy, referring to him as a trans girl, and yet still maintain that the other girls are also correct.
Well, you know, they're both right.
No one's wrong here.
This is a situation where you have diametrically opposed points of view, and only one person can be right.
It's impossible for them both to be right.
And instead of getting someone on the segment to just explain this and actually speak some truth, we get Caitlyn Jenner.
Who doesn't say anything, by the way.
Really, the whole segment just amounts to, well, we got this situation.
This is happening over here.
That's happening over there.
It's a big mess.
Oh, thanks, Caitlin.
Very insightful.
We really are grateful for your insight yet again.
All right, Daily Wire reports this.
One day after wearing a White Lives Matter shirt with Daily Wire host Candace Owens in Paris, Kanye West declared the Black Lives Matter movement over.
West and Owens shocked social media when the duo donned the White Lives Matter shirt, each of which also included a picture of the Pope's face on the front while flanked by models in matching tops.
Okay, I never saw the front of the shirt.
I saw the back.
So there's the Pope face on the front with models in matching tops.
I can't quite connect the dots on that one, but that's all right.
Everyone knows the Black Lives Matter was a scam.
Wes said on Instagram where he has nearly 18 million followers.
Now it's over, you're welcome.
The BLM movement has opposed law enforcement while promoting other radical ideas, as we know.
The White Lives Matter thing with our very own Candace Owens has been a big topic of conversation and people are very upset, as you can imagine.
We don't have to go through the whole rundown.
In fact, I just saw, I mean, there's so many examples of this, we could read them all, but I just saw someone posted, it was a fashion designer, I don't know which one, not that I can name any fashion designers, who said that this was a traumatic, it was a traumatic moment in all of our lives for Candace Owens and Kanye West to wear a shirt that says White Lives Matter.
And lots of stuff like that.
It's dangerous.
It's traumatic.
Jameel Hill tweeted, I've been off, dude.
I've been off, dude.
I don't know what that means.
I've been off.
Is there supposed to be a comma there?
marketing, maybe it is, but it's a dangerously dumb message to send for someone with his
massive platform.
I've been off, dude.
I've been off, dude.
I've been off.
Is there supposed to be a comma there?
I've been off, dude.
I've been off, dude.
Oh, I've been...
Okay, so she has been off.
She's been off this guy.
She doesn't like him.
Is that what it means?
But y'all go ahead labeling his foolishness as genius.
And then I responded to that.
I said, yes, it's so incredibly dangerous to say that a white man, a white person's life matters.
We know that you would never make such a claim, Jamil.
You despise white people, which is why you're morally superior.
Thank you for enlightening us once again.
A little bit of sarcasm there, I admit.
But she responded.
I want you to pay attention to this response, okay?
Now remember, she originally said that it's not only dumb, but dangerous.
It's dangerous to say that white lives matter.
She responded to me.
She says, you truly don't have the range for this.
The reason we don't have to say white lives matter is because white lives have never not mattered.
The default position in this country is white equals worthiness.
The same has never been true for black people.
You're welcome.
Now I want you to notice what she did there because this is always what happens.
Right?
This is always what happens.
She retreats from her claim without admitting that that's what she's doing.
She does it in a very defiant kind of way and acts like she's, you know, like she's dropping the mic, but she actually retreated completely from her claim because she originally said it's dangerous.
To claim that white lives matter.
And then in response to me, she says, it's just, it's not necessary.
It's redundant because white lives matter and everyone knows it.
So you don't need to say that.
Well, those are two different things.
Okay.
Um, it's a redundant, unnecessary message is not the same as a dangerous message.
In fact, a redundant, unnecessary message cannot be dangerous.
It's, it's, it's redundant.
It's unnecessary.
How can it, how can it be dangerous and also redundant and unnecessary?
What she's claiming in her follow-up is that, well, everyone knows that white lives matter.
It's so inherently understood that we don't even need to say it.
Well, if we all have this inherent understanding and everyone knows it, then how can it be dangerous to just say it out loud?
The worst it could be is redundant and unnecessary.
No, it can only be dangerous.
There's only one way.
Only one way that a message can be dangerous.
And there can be dangerous messages.
Here's a dangerous message to say to a boy, you could be a girl.
That's a dangerous message.
Very dangerous.
So I'm not here saying that words can never be dangerous.
They can.
You say that to a child, those are words.
It's very dangerous.
But the only way a message can be dangerous is if it's not true.
If the message, the statement, the declaration is true, it can't be dangerous.
So if you are saying that it's dangerous, you are saying that it's not true, which means that you are saying that you don't agree that white lives matter, which is what she really means.
So what she said the first time is what she means.
It's what they all mean.
Anyone out there saying white lives matter is dangerous.
What they all really mean is that they don't agree with it.
They don't think that white lives matter, at least they don't matter as much as black lives do.
And so it's dangerous to say it.
Because in their mind, there's a racial hierarchy in our society that they've worked very hard to build.
And when you go around, especially as a black man and a black woman, saying white lives matter, well, that throws the whole hierarchy out of balance.
Makes everything out of whack, in Caitlyn Jenner's words.
So that's their actual problem.
And this is all, you know, just leaving aside the fact that the claim that white lives have never not mattered in this country is, of course, not true.
In fact, the very fact that it's considered dangerous to say white lives matter means that white lives are not valued as much as other lives in this culture.
I mean, can you think of any example?
Just, you know, again, we're talking about history today, historical precedents.
Just think of other, and there are other examples you can think of through history, where it was considered controversial to say that a certain group of people had dignity or that their lives mattered.
To speak up in defense of the, you know, the inherent human dignity of a certain group of people.
Think of any time when that's been considered controversial.
Has it ever been because everyone knows that that group of people, that they're great and everything's fine?
Or is it because there is a considered effort to dehumanize that particular group of people?
And then, of course, we should also note that of all the things that rappers say, You know, of course, this is what they're upset about.
White lives matter.
Of all the things that a rapper could say, and many rappers do say, Kanye West not as much, but other rappers, and this is what they're getting upset about?
So, of course, you know, they can go out there openly advocating to kids that they use drugs, kill people, abuse women.
That's not a dangerous message.
But to say white lives matter, well, that's dangerous.
All right, this is, as you know, we're on this, we're just now embarking on our screening tour for What Is A Woman?
We're going to be going to colleges all across the country.
And we're starting, we're here, we're in D.C.
right now, we're going to be speaking at Catholic University.
We have an update on that, not just speaking, but screening the movie, and then we'll do a Q&A.
We have an update on Catholic University, but first, where we're going next is the University of Illinois.
And so Yaf tweeted this yesterday.
It says, leftists have a battle plan in place, what they call battle plan, quote unquote, to try and prevent Matt Walsh's What Is Woman tour at UIUC this Thursday.
They're asking volunteers to be mischief makers and plan to assemble a massive trans pride flag in the audience.
So this is what, and then we'll put it up on the screen, you can see, this is what they're sending around, the activists.
I think they originally, yeah, they originally posted this on Reddit.
And it says, um, remind him... Talking about me.
...that Earth have no space for transphobic b****.
What was that?
Remind him that Earth have no space... Remind him that Earth have no space... ...for transphobic b****.
You don't have to be trans, non-binary to join, because you too are a human being.
You are very unlikely to get into trouble.
You can participate anonymously.
So, what are they planning to do?
They're going to cause some mischief during my Q&A.
This is in a couple days.
Uh-oh.
I'm walking into some mischief.
I'm getting a little nervous about this.
You know, there's nothing I hate more than mischief.
So, what is it?
Here's what they're doing.
They have it all drawn out here.
I have to say that this drawing is... I mean, my nine-year-old daughter literally draws better pictures than this.
I should have hired her.
I should have asked her to help.
So, battle plan.
The plan is, assemble a massive trans pride flag in the audience.
That's the whole plan.
So I guess they want to, by wearing certain colored shirts, they want to make a trans pride flag and then I guess I'm going to come out and see the trans pride flag and burst into tears and run off the stage.
I think that's what they're hoping will happen.
We'll see.
We'll see if it happens.
Anyway, if you're interested in participating in this, I want to tell you what their plan is.
Stage 1, there's a sign-up form.
You can go to a certain website and sign up to be a Mischief Maker.
Because that's the thing about Mischief Makers.
They always have sign-up forms.
You have to sign up to do mischief.
Stage 2, be a Mischief Maker.
Show up at 7pm.
Put on provided shirt.
Then return the shirt back to us.
Stage three, return the shirts.
And it mentions again, return the shirts.
So they're very, this is the funniest thing about this to me, is that they're very clear they want the shirts back.
They need their shirts back.
That's the most important thing.
That's like stage three, four and five is make sure you give the damn shirts back.
Okay, so that's what they're planning to do.
And there is an update that was just emailed to me.
And so I'm looking at it right now on the spot here.
And we're being told that They cancelled.
The counter protest is cancelled at Illinois.
Okay, so this is all a big waste of time.
Apparently, this is what they sent out.
This is what the activists sent out.
Dear mischief makers and accomplices, this email is for announcing that Thursday's mischief has been officially cancelled.
Please do not bring t-shirts on Tuesday or show up on Thursday night.
The reason behind the prompt cancellation has to do with A, serious logistic issues, and B, safety of participants.
How can you have logistic issues when all you're planning to do is sit in the audience with blue and pink shirts on?
You have logistic?
You can't figure that out logistically?
I am no logistical genius by any means whatsoever, but I can figure out how to.
I'll help you, okay?
You need my help?
We can figure out a way to get everyone the shirts they need for this.
What are the logistics?
We collected more than 60 responses to show up during the speech.
Even though some responses are just random responses, the number of participants is much higher than the t-shirts available, which is less than 10 at the time of writing.
So they couldn't get enough t-shirts?
You wanted to make a trans pride flag in the audience and you only had 10 shirts?
How are you going to make a whole flag with 10 shirts?
And then also, safety of participants.
Some responses in the sign-up form made us worry about the safety of the participants.
We fight and speak up, yet safety and mental well-being always come first.
So, it sounds like my safety was actually being jeopardized.
So, these are people on your side saying things that make you worried about safety.
So, were they planning to hurt themselves during the speech?
Or were they saying things that they were planning to hurt me?
And you don't want to get in trouble for that.
Well, I don't know.
Anyway, so they had their big protest and they had to cancel it because they couldn't find enough shirts.
You had all this planning and you couldn't come up with pink and blue shirts?
You couldn't just order a pack of them on Amazon?
You could order a pack of them on Amazon for 20 bucks.
You'd get enough pink and blue shirts for everybody.
You'd have enough that I could wear one.
Oh my god.
And then what's happening, let's see, there's also an update that this is all just sent to me right now.
I honestly have not read it.
And so there's an update on the Catholic University.
Am I about to find out right now that our event was canceled and I'm here for no reason?
So this email was sent out by the president of the university.
Says, as the Catholic University of America, we are often asked to defend or explain our actions in terms of how they stand up to what it means to be a Catholic.
As an example, last week I met with a group of students who asked me to consider censoring or canceling a speaker invited by another group of students whom they believe does not reflect the values we hold as core to our identity as a Catholic university.
Here we go.
The argument made an impression on me because it came from a sincere desire which I share to create on this campus an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere for all students.
The spookier they asserted would make them feel unwelcome and even unsafe.
While I do not want any student to feel unwelcome or unsafe, I couldn't agree to the request.
All right.
Well done, sir.
And then he goes on explaining why, after consideration, he's decided not to cancel the event.
But it's pretty long and he's, you know, trying to reason with people and explain that, you know, it's, we want to hear other people's points of view.
He doesn't, I don't think he mentions this, I have to read the whole thing, but, you know, I am Catholic myself and everything, and no, he does not say this, I'm Catholic myself, everything I say on the topic of gender and sex, all of that is 100% in keeping with Catholic teaching. 100%.
It's also in keeping with reality and truth.
And so often all these things line up together, which is the great thing about being Catholic.
But anyway, you know, that's also something maybe, maybe, maybe it'd be worth mentioning.
And I know, I guess I'm supposed to give Peter Kilpatrick credit for not canceling the event, which great, but, but actually I don't give you credit for that at all.
I'm not going to thank you for that because that's what I, that's expected.
Okay, to cancel a Catholic speaker on a Catholic campus who's talking about the reality of biological sex, that would just be unacceptable.
And so he is not doing the unacceptable thing, which is, okay, good.
All right, let's see.
One other thing that we got.
Well, this is important before we get to the comment section.
This is from NPR.
This is only going to interest me, so we're going to talk about it.
Months of suspicion erupted into full-throated fury at a professional fishing tournament in Ohio, where two anglers were allegedly caught with egg-shaped weights in their catch, an edge of more than seven pounds that would have ensured a lucrative championship.
And there's a video, apparently, of people discovering this.
Very dramatic video.
We're not going to play it, but you can find it online, where they're doing the weigh-in, and then someone suspects that there's weights in the fish.
They cut the fish open.
They're so unfortunate for the fish.
And so the fish get cut open and they pull the weights out.
So they actually put lead weights in the fish so they could win when they get to the weigh-in.
Now, as an avid angler myself, I have to say that I'm totally disgusted and disappointed that I never thought to do this because that's actually pretty smart.
It never even occurred to me that you could put weights in the fish's mouth to pump up your stats a little bit.
But it is bad.
It's cheating.
It brings disgrace to those of us who enjoy sitting around for hours at a time stabbing hooks through fish's mouths for fun.
It makes us even look a little bit weird.
Which is, to me, what I am most angry about.
Let's get to the comment section.
Do you know their name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang.
Dalton says, Dad and I went squirrel hunting Sunday morning, and I had a blast, even for a first time.
Other than spending time outdoors with my father and learning firearm safety, I kept, in the back of my head, many of our leaders, I kept thinking, I guess, in the back of my head, many of our leaders would despise my family for doing what we did, simply because it had a semblance of toxic masculinity, and making our leaders even more upset pleases me to no extent.
Well, yeah, it's fulfilling, even leaving aside the fact that you're killing those innocent, precious squirrels, which actually, in all seriousness, I mean, if you're going to go hunting, that's probably the best hunting you can do because squirrels are a menace.
But even leaving that aside, the fact that you're spending quality time as a family learning some important life skills, yeah, that would upset the powers that be in our culture.
Burzum the second says, I've already reached my quota for gay content.
I binged a Netflix series about an iconic LGBTQ figure, Dahmer.
Great acting, tight writing, and I suppose a good boost for their representation.
Yeah, that's been one controversy that, you know, we cover a lot of the really dumb controversies on this show, and there are some that even I I can't bring myself to care about enough to talk about and that's one of them.
But it is pretty funny.
I have to admit.
So I guess Netflix has this…I don't know if it's a…I guess it's not a documentary.
It's like a true crime show, miniseries about Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer.
And I have an issue with it because I just don't… Maybe there's a certain gene that I lack that other people have that makes them really fascinated by serial killers and there's this insatiable thirst that people have to consume serial killer content and I don't quite have it and I especially like a mini-series about a serial killer I don't need to see.
These people actually are not that interesting, right?
Serial killers are, they're sociopaths, and they enjoy killing people.
I don't find it interesting.
Like I don't need to spend, the idea of spending five, six, seven, eight, nine,
10 hours collectively, watching a story like that,
I don't quite get it myself.
But, you know, Netflix especially puts these things out all the time.
People love it.
But not in this case, because they represented, you know, Jeffrey Dahmer is a homosexual.
And they, I guess that comes out in the show, that he's a homosexual.
And apparently Netflix even labeled it at one point.
They labeled the Jeffrey Dahmer serial killer show as LGBT content.
They had that label.
It was under the LGBT category.
Which is almost funnier than my book, Johnny the Walrus, being labeled an LGBT book.
Almost funnier, but not quite.
And, of course, the left got very upset about this.
They said, no, we don't want that.
This is not LGBT.
Well, he was gay, you know.
So you want representation.
No, we don't want that representation.
So you want representation of only the good guys.
So you want, that's what you want.
You want, well, that's not how it works.
As the straight people, we have good guys, we've got bad guys, we've got them all.
And so if you want, there's two sides to the coin.
And if you want representation in film, then you've got to take both sides of it.
And that means you've got to start claiming some of these serial killers too.
You've got to start taking some of them off our hands.
The Dirty Bubble says, I am very... The Dirty Bubble?
I'm very happy to hear the movie Bros has been a commercial failure.
YouTube was pushing this film heavily in their advertisements for a few weeks and championing its critic
rating as if it's worth a damn That's one of my favorite things about this story
Also, it's just the whole thing is great. The whole thing is great the fact that the movie flopped so spectacularly
And I really can't we talked about it yesterday But I cannot emphasize enough just how much of a failure
this film actually was To make less than five million dollars in an opening
weekend They made half a million on opening night, okay?
$500,000.
Less than $5 million over a whole opening weekend when you've got all that marketing push behind it and the media is behind it is just a catastrophic failure and it's hilarious.
So I love that.
I love the fact that Billy Eichner, the star of the film, is just watching him.
If you don't have a Twitter account, get a Twitter account this week because the best thing happening on social media this week and probably for this decade is Billy Eichner trying to cope with the fact that nobody wanted to see his gay sex film.
He cannot cope with it.
He can't deal with it and he's just lashing out and it gets more unhinged by the day.
It's great.
And also, When you see how critics especially are flabbergasted by this because they keep saying, well, we said it's good.
We told you guys the movie's good.
We told you to go watch it.
You didn't watch it.
So the media can't understand.
It doesn't compute.
If you go to Rotten Tomatoes, the movie has a 300% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
It's the best thing they've ever seen, right?
And yet no one cares.
No one in the movie-going audience cares what the critics say.
And so they're trying to cope with that.
There's a lot of cope going on and it's just great.
Do you want to win a McLaren or $250,000 in cash?
I'm talking to all the dads right now.
As a father, we all want what's best for our children and their education.
I would never want my kid to own a McLaren.
Where is this going?
Well, I wouldn't want them to have $250,000 either.
But that's why we sometimes begrudgingly, but still enthusiastically, participate in school fundraisers.
From buying magazines, to baking cookies, to paying a bunch of kids, to half-wash our vehicles at the team car wash.
Well, what if you could spearhead the biggest fundraiser in your school and community's history with less effort than a walk-a-thon?
Oh, OK.
All right.
I do agree with this.
By now, you've likely heard of Jeremy's Razors, the contest for the car where you might become the winner of Jeremy's McLaren.
Now, short, you could add a 592-horsepower supercar to your school's bus fleet, or you could opt for the $250,000 cash prize instead.
You and all the other dads and moms could do a lot of good for your kids with that money just by referring a few non-woke raisers.
Imagine, a quarter million dollars to resurface the gym, build a computer room, put up some Friday night lights.
Right now, most of the top players in the contest still haven't hit the 10 referrals mark, so the field is wide open for you to win it all.
Go to the Principal's office, get him or her involved and head to jeremysrazors.com slash play to get your referral link and get in the game.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation, we turn to The Guardian, which published an article on Saturday with this title and subheading, How Gay Parenthood Through Surrogacy Became a Battleground.
In New York, a gay couple fighting to make their insurers pay for fertility treatment have found themselves in the middle of a culture war.
What happens when the right to parenthood involves someone else's body?
Well, I can answer that question.
What happens, or what should happen anyway, is that you realize that nobody has a right to parenthood in the first place.
The very notion of a right to parenthood is not only bizarre and unintelligible, but also ripe with all sorts of very dark implications.
But something tells me that that's not the answer to the question that we're going to get from this piece, so let's read on.
It says, Corey Briskin and Nicholas Magi-Pinto met in law school in 2011, were engaged by 2014, and had their 2016 wedding announced in the New York Times.
They moved to a waterfront apartment block in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, with a bright playroom for families on the ground floor.
Quote, We got married and then we wanted all the trappings.
House, children, 401k, etc.
Magi Pinto 37 tells me in their building shared meeting room.
Tapping the table in sequence with the progression of each idea.
Briskin 33 grew up assuming he'd have children.
He came out in college.
Quote, Once I had come out to myself and others, I don't think my expectation of what my life would look like changed all that much.
With marriage equality one years ago, they expected to be able to have a conventional married life.
Yes, the laws changed, which led these two men to assume that they would be able to have a biological child.
A change in the law was supposed to also result in a change to fundamental human biology, apparently.
That's what they expected, and it didn't turn out that way, tragically, for them.
Reading against this, six months before their wedding, a targeted ad from an organization called Gay Parents To Be landed in Magi Pinto's Instagram feed, offering free consultations with a fertility doctor who'd give them the whole rundown on how they could start a family.
Quote, we had the same appointment and we were 100% on the same page.
Let's move forward with this, said Magi Pinto.
That's when they first became aware of the eye-watering cost of biological parenthood for gay men.
MagiPinto reels off the price list in a way that only someone who's poured over every item could.
There's compensation for the egg donor, no less than $8,000.
The egg donor agency fee, $8,000 to $10,000.
The fertility clinic's bill, including genetic testing, blood tests, STD screening, and a psychiatric evaluation for all parties.
Sperm testing, egg extraction, insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing, and implantation of the resulting embryos.
Up to $70,000, and that's if it all goes well.
If no embryos are created during a cycle, or if the embryos that are don't lead to a successful pregnancy, they would have to start again.
Okay, I feel like I must interject here to correct the record.
These are not the costs of biological parenthood for gay men, as though they're some sort of special upcharge based on your sexual orientation.
These are the costs of trying to usurp and evade nature during the child conception process.
For two men, the costs are even steeper because they not only must conceive a child in a petri dish, but they also must rent a woman's womb, literally purchasing her body to be used as property.
And along with being a morally horrific practice, it's also very expensive.
So the expense is the only thing that mattered to these two narcissists.
They don't appear to have stopped to consider the ethical implications at all.
It continues, then there's the cost of a surrogate called a gestational carrier when they carry embryos created for another woman's eggs.
MagiPinto and Briskin were told agency fees alone could stretch to $25,000 and the surrogates themselves could be paid a minimum of $60,000.
It takes 15 minutes for MagiPinto to run me through all the expenses they could incur if they tried to have a child genetically related to one of them.
The bottom line?
$200,000 minimum, he says, tapping his index finger on the table with each word in disbelief.
They couldn't afford it.
Magi Pinto earns a corporate lawyer's salary, but is saddled with student debt.
Briskin used to work for the city of New York as an assistant district attorney, earning about $75,000 a year.
Okay.
Yes.
Who could find a more oppressed victim group than two gay lawyers in New York?
Well, I mean, literally anyone could find a more oppressed victim group.
I cannot think of a group less oppressed than gay lawyers in New York.
But don't worry, they are working to rectify this injustice.
They're suing the city of New York so that their IDF and surrogacy will be covered under the city's health insurance plan.
In other words, they want to create a baby and purchase a woman's womb, and they want the taxpayers to fund it.
As one of them says in a line quoted in the headline of the article, they can't be expected to be okay with not having children.
Even though they are two men and they literally cannot have children together, not by my decree or by the law, but by the decree of nature, they still shouldn't be expected to be okay with it, they say.
It's the duty of the taxpayer or the insurance companies to subsidize whatever elaborate morally problematic workaround they can devise.
That's their position.
And it's completely absurd, of course.
Now, commercial surrogacy, to begin with, is a barbarous practice, which is why it's illegal in many countries across the Western world, except in the United States, of course.
That's one thing I think people don't often realize or appreciate, is that so often our laws are far more leftist and liberal than Europe.
I mean, we tend to think of Europe as the kind of farther along on the left-wing crazy train, and maybe in some ways culturally they are, but when it comes to laws, abortion laws is another one, their laws are much more conservative than ours.
So, in many countries, for-profit commercial surrogacy is illegal.
And even not-for-profit surrogacy, what they call, quote, altruistic surrogacy, is also banned in many countries, including Germany, Portugal, Italy, Spain.
Why?
Well, because surrogacy is a moral crime against both women and children.
The woman is rented.
Her actual body, her reproductive capacity, is put under contract.
It's purchased for temporary use, like an Airbnb.
It is dehumanizing.
Even if the woman is paid for it.
In fact, especially if she's paid for it, it's dehumanizing.
And in most cases, such as would be the case with the two oppressed gay New York lawyers, a second woman's body is also auctioned off as she has to provide the eggs to conceive the child, and then that's implanted into the rented womb of another.
The two men who wish to have biological children have almost nothing to do with the process, except to provide the sperm for the Petri dish.
And it should be noted that only one man provides the sperm, so that even after all this effort, still the male couple will not have a biological child.
So this whole thing is about gay couples who want to have biological children.
They still can't.
They can't.
One member of the couple will have a biological child, while some other woman, who neither of them know, and who the child will never know, is the other person who creates the child.
And that brings us to the child who, you may have noticed, never factors into the calculation at all.
The two dudes talk about me, I, we, us, me, me, me, me, me, but they never at any point mention the well-being of the child who they're trying to conceive.
The child who will forever be deprived of knowing his mother.
He will never know the woman who gave him life.
He will never know the woman who harbored him in her womb and birthed him.
He will only know the men who bought him.
The men who they believe have a right to him.
And that's exactly why there is no right to parenthood and never can be.
What kind of confused world do we live in when society does not recognize a parent's right to raise their own children that they actually conceived, but it does recognize a gay couple's right to conceive children in the first place?
Such a right cannot exist.
Rights, okay, if they mean anything, Human rights must be natural, ingrained in our human nature.
You cannot have a right over and above and against nature.
You cannot make a rights claim against nature.
So two men claiming that they have a right to conceive, it's like two men claiming they have a right to breathe underwater like a fish.
And with technological assistance, you can breathe underwater.
Not exactly like a fish, but you can get by underwater for a time.
A pale imitation, but it may be enough to get the job done.
Yet it doesn't make any sense to say that you have a right to do it.
Our rights are not a list of all the things that we can physically do with or without technology.
The main reason you can't have a right to parenthood is that parenthood requires the participation of other people.
And in the case of two gay men, it requires a whole army of other people, a whole battalion.
Doctors and scientists and multiple women willing to sell parts of their bodies and agencies and everything else.
To say they have a right to parenthood is to say that all of these other people are obliged to provide them with their parenthood opportunity.
It is to, in a sense, morally conscript these other parties to give you what nature would not.
Your right becomes an obligation for others.
Your right, in other words, becomes the removal of rights for others.
Imagine if a gay couple couldn't find a woman willing to rent out her womb or sell her eggs.
If the couple has a right to parenthood, Then it must be said that these women are infringing on the couple's right by not providing their bodies for usage.
These two men are literally declaring that they have a right to a woman's body.
Because that's what it means.
As a gay man, if you're saying you have a right to biological parenthood, you are saying you have a right to a woman's body.
Which is exactly the sort of thing that the left is always screaming about, only in this case it's actually happening, and the people who scream about it are silent.
Or else cheering it along.
Which is hypocrisy in the extreme.
Par for the course.
But we still must say that Corey Briskin, Nicholas Magi-Pinto, the oppressed gay lawyers from New York, only to add to their oppression today, are cancelled.
And that will do it for us today.
We move over to the members' block.
I hope to see you there.
If not, talk to you tomorrow, or I'll see you at Catholic University tonight.
